From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tilman List <tilman.list@posteo.de>
Subject: Re: Version of package fontforge
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 23:06:28 +0200
Message-ID: <e141c008a2a5db216927c5898cf7e3f6647e0cbb.camel@posteo.de>
References: <c0f3345fb1355e97b9989d9545e1fb7c1781176c.camel@posteo.de>
 <20190607045311.2aiuulc5f6p6eibk@cf0>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53706)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from <tilman.list@posteo.de>) id 1hgy5G-0006B9-LV
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:07:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <tilman.list@posteo.de>) id 1hgy57-0006WE-Su
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:06:57 -0400
Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:55158)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <tilman.list@posteo.de>)
 id 1hgy54-0006P4-9s
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:06:51 -0400
Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130])
 by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2106E16005F
 for <help-guix@gnu.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 23:06:44 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20190607045311.2aiuulc5f6p6eibk@cf0>
List-Id: <help-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/help-guix>,
 <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:help-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-guix>,
 <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Help-Guix" <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: ison <ison@airmail.cc>
Cc: help-guix@gnu.org

Thank you!

On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 22:53 -0600, ison wrote:
> Here's a patch to set the version date based on the packages version string.
> I also added a comment above the version to note that the version date depends
> on its format, in case it ever changes in the future.
> 
> Does someone want to look it over and make sure it looks ok, and follows the
> right conventions?